C SAMPATH KUMAR Vs. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two criminal original petitions, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent to withhold further proceedings in C. C. No. 60 of 1996 and C. C. No. 61 of 1996 on the files of the Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate (E. O.-I), Egmore and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O.-II), Egmore, Madras.

(2.) THE necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of these two cases are these : THE respondent preferred a complaint against the petitioners under Section 56 (1) (ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter shortly referred to as the'act'). According to the respondent, the petitioners have committed an offence in respect of Section 40 (3) of the Act, the violation of the same is punishable under Section 56 (1) (ii)of the Act. THE said proceedings have been questioned in these petitions on number of grounds. One of the grounds raised by the petitioners is that on the very reading of the provisions of the Act, Sections 40 (3) and 56 (1) (ii) of the act, the criminal cases filed against the petitioners are not maintainable.

(3.) SECTION 56 of the Act is a punishment section and other section found in the Act deals with offences/powers of officers and, therefore, for contravention of the provisions of the Act, the main SECTION 56 of the Act is attracted. The non-compliance of summons is a non-compliance of a direction/order/rule/condition under SECTION 40 of the Act and in any event, the same is not to be measured vis-a-vis monetary/pecuniary extent insofar as section 56 of the Act is concerned. The contravention under the Act are given under various SECTIONs/provisions of FERA and as such, the punishment has not been stipulated in each and every SECTION of the FERA, 1973. For punishment under the FERA of any of the provisions of the Act, one has to look into section 56 only, except those sections, which are clearly excluded under section 56 of the Act. It is not correct for the petitioners to contend that for invoking SECTION 56, there should be a monetary contravention and the petitioners cannot interpret the section to suit their convenience and the non-compliance is a contravention within the meaning of the Act and the punishment SECTION is SECTION 56 of the Act. The very fact that number of summons were issued would only go to show the defiant attitude of the petitioners towards the summons and the same cannot be used in their advantage at the cost of the investigation which was suffering.